POLITICAL
PARTIES WIN CAMPAIGN LAWSUITHOWEVER, U.S.
SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD

On May
2, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated the parts of McCain-Feingold campaign
finance law that outlaw large donations to political parties. The vote was 2-1.
McConnell v FEC, 02-582.

Before
the law went into effect in November, 2002, it had always been legal for anyone
to give as much money as he or she wished to any party. The McCain-Feingold
law made it illegal for anyone to contribute more than $25,000 to a national
party. Judge Karen Henderson, a Bush, Sr. appointee, ruled that the limit on
giving to parties is totally invalid. Judge Richard Leon, a Bush, Jr., appointee,
ruled that the ban is valid only to the extent that the donation is used for
campaign advertising for particular candidates for federal office. Therefore,
if the decision is not overturned, individuals can still give as much money
as they wish to parties, for purposes other than campaign advertising for particular
federal candidates.

Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, would have upheld the law. She was the
only one of the three judges who commented on the Libertarian Party's brief.
Defenders of the law say that individuals who give large donations to political
parties get easier access to the president and members of Congress. This is
the rationale for the restrictions. Therefore, the Libertarian Party argues,
why should donations to it be restricted, since it has never come close to electing
a federal office-holder? Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote, in footnote 171, "even
minor party candidates may win elective office or have a substantial impact
on the outcome of an election." She provided no examples, or any further detail.

A double
standard is at work here. When minor parties seek entry to the presidential
debates, they are told they have no "realistic chance of winning the election,"
and thus can be barred.

But when
minor parties seek relief from finance restrictions, they are told that they
must be restricted because they have a "substantial impact" on federal elections.

The entire
law is still in effect, because the U.S. District Court stayed its own decision
on May 19. On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to disturb the stay. That
Court will probably hear the government's appeal in September or October.

OTHER
PROVISIONS ALSO THROWN OUT

These provisions
of the McCain-Feingold law were also invalidated:

1. §323(b),
which barred large donations to state and local parties for purposes other than
voter registration and "get-out-the vote" activity. However, large donations
to state and local parties are still prohibited for the purpose of advertising
for particular federal candidates.

2. §323(d),
which barred national, state and local parties from contributing to, or soliciting
donations for, tax-exempt organizations. For example, the Foundation for Free
Campaigns and Elections, which funds ballot access lawsuits, could not have
received any donations from political parties under this section.

3. §201,
which makes it illegal for corporations or labor unions to sponsor broadcast
ads that are made within 60 days of a general election for federal office, or
30 days of a primary, that refer to a federal candidate.

However,
the "back-up" provision of 201 was left in place. It bans a broadcast paid for
by a corporation or labor union at any time if that ad seems to support or attack
a candidate for federal office.

4. §213,
which forbids parties from making both coordinated expenditures for one of its
nominees, and uncoordinated expenditures for that same nominee.

5. §318,
which makes it illegal for anyone age 17 or younger to contribute even $1 to
a political party or to a federal candidate.

6. §504,
which requires TV and radio stations to maintain, and make available for public
inspection, a complete record of any request to buy time to discuss any federal
election, or any national legislative issue (even if the buyer doesn't complete
the sale).

JUDGES
REJECT FREE PRESS ARGUMENT

The same
three judges who heard the case against the McCain-Feingold law rejected the
arguments of a group of Libertarian candidates, who had their own attorney (separate
from the Libertarian Party's attorney) to argue that the First Amendment provision
on Freedom of the Press should invalidate most provisions of the McCain-Feingold
law, as well as many provisions of the old law.

The First
Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press." The plaintiffs who cited Freedom of Press are Congressman
Ron Paul, Carla Howell, Michael Cloud, and Perry Willis. They noted that all
federal campaign laws, old and new, always exempt the "institutional press"
from all restrictions. Then they argued that everyone who attempts to influence
public opinion about political and campaign matters should be treated as "press."
During the 18th and 19th centuries, virtually every newspaper of general circulation
was strongly, unashamedly partisan, and made no pretense of being "objective"
while commenting on political parties or candidates.

Pages 106-113
of the joint opinion of Judges Kollar-Kotelly and Leon reject this argument.
They say the "Press" part of the First Amendment is redundant, that it adds
nothing to the "Speech" part. The "Paul plaintiffs," as they are called
in the decision, are appealing.

ACCESS
BILL: HR 1941

On May
1, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) introduced HR 1941, to outlaw severe ballot
access restrictions for minor party and independent candidates for the U.S.
House of Representatives. The preamble to the bill tells why the bill is needed.
See http://thomas.loc.gov, and enter "HR1941"
at the top of the page.

If your
member of congress becomes a co-sponsor of HR 1941, B.A.N. will pay you
$50, if these procedures are followed:

1.
First, ask your member of Congress to co-sponsor HR 1941. If and when you get
a written response (no matter how perfunctory), send a copy of the Congressmember's
response to B.A.N.

2.B.A.N. will then extend your subscription for three months. If you are
not now a subscriber, you will be given a 3-month sub.

3.
For all those who have followed the steps above, B.A.N. will send you
$50 if the member of Congress you had contacted becomes a co-sponsor in 2003.
Only one gift per member of Congress will be given; in case of ties, the earlier
activist (as determined by the date on the Congressmember's letter) will receive
the gift. In case of letters to multiple activists bearing the same date, the
gift will be split equally. This offer expires December 31, 2003.

HR 1941
has no chance of passing unless it obtains many co-sponsors.

A case
can be made that HR 1941 is needed to save popular control of the federal government.
The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right of the voters to choose the
president. Presidential electors choose the president, and state legislatures
have the right to choose the electors. Art. II, §1 says, "Each state shall appoint,
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, the Electors."

Many have
forgotten that the Florida legislature, in December 2000, was about to pass
a bill nullifying the popular vote for president and providing that the legislature
should choose Florida's presidential electors.

The Constitution
does give the voters the right to elect members of congress. Unfortunately,
some state legislatures have violated the U.S. Constitution, and passed laws
that make it impossible for anyone but the Democratic and Republican nominees
to get on the ballot for the U.S. House. No independent or minor party candidate
for the U.S. House has ever qualified under existing Georgia laws, which have
existed completely unchanged since 1977.

Federal
judges, and members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, have dishonorably and
shamefully failed to rule against the Georgia laws. If the Georgia legislature
can write a law that guarantees a Democratic-Republican monopoly for U.S. House
elections, then, under the Constitution, any other state can do the same. The
current Supreme Court will not provide voting protection in U.S. House elections
for voters who wish to vote for someone other than the Democratic and Republican
nominees (on March 10, 2003, it refused to hear Cartwright v Barnes).
Congress itself must act.

Some believe
that non-major party candidates for Congress never win, so this issue isn't
important. However, in the 20th century, the voters elected members to the House
who weren't Democratic or Republican nominees in one-half of 1% of all U.S.
House elections. This works out to two such victories per election year, since
the House has 435 members. At least one such person has been elected at every
election since 1988.

AMERICAN
CANDIDATE TV SHOW

On May
2, the FX cable network said that it will not carry "The American Candidate"
in early 2004. "The American Candidate" had been planned to showcase attractive
and interesting independent or minor party presidential candidates (see B.A.N.
of Feb. 1, 2003). The network said the show will cost too much to produce.

R. J. Cutler,
the documentary filmmaker who planned to produce the show, hopes to announce
that he has found another sponsoring TV network by June 15.

N.C.
STALL

The May
1 B.A.N. said that a North Carolina ballot access bill, H867, had passed
the policy committee unanimously, and was due for a vote in the House. Unfortunately,
the two co-speakers of the House, Democrat Jim Black and Republican Richard
Morgan, so far have refused to allow the House to vote on the bill.

Morgan
said, in an e-mail to Dave Goree (a Libertarian who has been leading the fight
for the bill), "I believe that the current threshold for establishment of a
political party is sufficient. It maintains stability within its political system.
Although there are some legitimate political parties in existence that have
not yet met this threshold in North Carolina, there are even more parties that
are illegitimate that this policy has been able to keep at bay."

Current
law requires almost 60,000 valid signatures, and has kept the Green Party and
the Constitution Party off the ballot in that state, even though those two parties
have been on the ballot of most other states. Morgan didn't specify what he
means by "illegitimate" parties. Since political parties are the carriers of
ideas, Morgan seems to endorse the idea that the state should decide which ideas
are "legitimate" and "illegitimate."

Activists
are working to save the bill. On May 7, Ralph Nader met with U.S. Senator John
Edwards of North Carolina, who promised to work to get the bill passed. A protest
rally was held at the State House on May 20, and friendly legislators are looking
for a maneuver to advance the bill.

The Green
Party has asked the ACLU to bring a lawsuit against the wording of the existing
party petition, which says that the signers "intend to organize a new party."
North Carolina is in the 4th circuit, and the 4th circuit has already ruled
that the state has no interest in requiring new party petitions to carry such
language. If the proposed lawsuit wins, the legislature will have another motivation
to pass some sort of reform. The legislature is expected to be in session for
at least three more months.

CUMULATIVE
VOTING GAINS IN ILLINOIS

On May
9, HB 138 passed the legislature. The Governor has until August 7 to sign or
veto the bill. It gives Illinois counties the authority to authorize cumulative
voting, in elections for County Boards. It also permits the voters to pass initiatives
(signed by 8% of the last gubernatorial vote), providing for cumulative voting
for county boards.

Cumulative
voting only applies to multi-winner elections. If three are to be elected, a
voter is free to cast all three of his or her votes for just a single individual,
or to give one vote apiece to each of three candidates, or to give 1.5 votes
to each of two candidates. Cumulative voting makes it easier for parties that
don't enjoy majority support to still elect some members of a legislative body.

Supporters
of HB 138 used DuPage County as a bad example (DuPage is Illinois' 2nd most
populous county). All 18 members of the DuPage County Board are Republicans.

WEST
VIRGINIA PETITION IMPROVES

West Virginia
Secretary of State Joe Manchin III has improved the petition form that minor
party and independent candidates must use. The old form said, "We are aware
that by signing this certificate we are giving up our right to vote for any
other partisan candidates at the primary election." This was in large print.

The new
form deletes that language. Instead, in smaller print, it says, "No person signing
such certificate shall vote at the next primary election. Provided, that no
criminal penalty may be imposed upon anyone who signs a nomination certificate
and votes in the primary election held after the certificate was signed."

West Virginia
and Texas are the only states that do not allow petition signers (for minor
parties) to vote in primary elections. The West Virginia legislature repealed
the criminal penalty (for both signing, and then voting in the primary) in 1999,
but only now does the petition form reflect that change. The 1999 law also doubled
the signature requirement.

TEXAS
GAIN

On May
28, the Texas legislature passed HB 1274, which removes the requirement that
petition circulators must read a long, complicated sentence to every potential
signer. The sentence warns people that they cannot sign if they voted in the
primary.

Although
the restriction on both voting in the primary and then signing still exists,
petitioners will be much better off, not being forced to read that complex sentence,
which typically took 20 seconds to read out-loud.

REPUBLICAN
PARTY DEADLINE NEWS

1. Alabama:
HB 127, to relax the deadline for a qualified party to certify the names of
its presidential and vice-presidential (to accommodate the Republican Party's
September 2 national convention) passed the House on May 6. The Senate will
take it up after June 6, when the regular session re-convenes.

2. California:
there is no law requiring a qualified political party to certify the names of
its national ticket by any particular day. But §8148 says the Secretary of State,
no later than August 26, shall tell the counties which names to print on ballots.
Although theoretically the Secretary of State is free to supplement the list
a week later, he plans to ask the legislature to amend that deadline.

3 D.C.:
a Regulation requires qualified parties to certify by August 31. A bill will
be introduced any day now to give the Board of Elections the power to waive
this regulation.

4. Illinois:
like California, there is no law setting a deadline for a qualified party to
certify its national ticket. But §5/7-60 tells the State Board of Elections,
by August 27, to tell the counties which names to print on the ballot. The Board
has asked the Attorney General whether it can supplement that list a week later.

5. Maryland:
SB 244, which deletes a law telling qualified parties that they must certify
their national tickets by August 31, was signed into law on May 13.

ALABAMA
PROGRESS

SB 284
passed the Senate Elections Committee on May 6, unanimously. It would let minor
party or independent candidates obtain a place on the general election ballot,
with no petition. They would only need to pay the same filing fee that Democrats
and Republicans now pay to run in the primary. The sponsor is Senator Henry
Sanders, a Democrat.

MORE
LEGISLATIVE NEWS

1. Alabama:
on May 6, the House passed HB 104, which lets ex-felons register to vote, unless
they had been convicted of rape, murder, treason or pornography possession with
intent to distribute that pornography.

2. Alaska:
on May 21, the legislature passed SB 119. It fixes a Libertarian Party problem.
The old law had one definition of "political party" for ballot-access purposes,
but a different definition for campaign finance purposes. The Libertarian Party
met the ballot-access definition of "party," but not the campaign finance definition.
Consequently, it was the only party on the ballot that didn't enjoy the higher
contribution limits that the other parties have, relative to non-party organizations.
Now, however, the campaign-finance definition matches the ballot-access definition.

3. California:
SB 152, which would have made it illegal for a "sore loser" to be a write-in
candidate in the general election, was defeated in the Senate Elections Committee
on May 7.

4. Connecticut:
on May 28, the House passed H6372, which sets up petition procedures for candidates
running in major party primaries. Under existing law, no one can run in a primary
without substantial support at a party caucus. Petitions of 2% of party members
would be needed for statewide office, and 5% for district office.

5. Minnesota:
SF 31, which would have moved the non-presidential primary from September to
June, and also made it more difficult for candidates to get on a primary ballot
unless they had support at a caucus, failed to pass. However, it could pass
next year.

6. Louisiana:
SB 539 has been amended so that it no longer injures minor parties and independent
candidates. It would restore closed primaries for congressional elections. As
described in the May 1 B.A.N., it would have created onerous ballot access
barriers for minor party and independent candidates for Congress. But the author,
Senator Cleo Fields, amended it so that independents and minor party candidates
could still get on the ballot with a filing fee and no petition. The bill passed
the Senate Government Affairs Committee on May 14.

7. Maine:
LD 1349 passed the Legal and Veterans Committee on May 14. As amended, it abolishes
the petition requirement for new parties, and it also abolishes the 5% vote
test for them to stay on. Instead, a qualified party would simply be one that
had 15,000 registered members. In Maine, 15,000 is approximately 1.6% of the
total state registration. At the last tally the Green Party (the only qualified
minor party) had 16,169 registrants.

8. Massachusetts:
the Senate is considering the state budget. Competing amendments would either
eliminate public funding for state election campaigns, or fund it with various
fees and surcharges.

9. Michigan:
on May 14, the legislature passed SB 397, to abolish the 2004 presidential primary.

10. Montana:
HB 190 was signed into law on April 24. It requires declared write-in candidates
to pay the filing fee, 1% of the annual salary of the office. Similar laws have
been held unconstitutional in California, Maryland and West Virginia. Legislators
were told about these court precedents, but they passed the bill anyway.

11. Oklahoma:
SB 3, which moves the primary from March to February 3, was signed into law
on May 5.

12. Tennessee:
HB 1560 and SB 1315, which would have increased all candidate petitions from
25 signatures to 50 signatures, failed to pass, and the legislature has now
adjourned.

13. Texas:
HB 2496, which moves the primary from the second Tuesday in March to the first
Tuesday in March, passed legislature on May 28. It has the indirect effect of
making the new party petition due one week earlier than it had been.

14. Wisconsin:
AB 112, which moves the primary from April to the third Tuesday in February,
was signed into law on May 20.

DELAWARE
FILING FEE

A potentially
helpful lawsuit is pending in the 3rd circuit. It challenges Delaware's filing
fee, which is mandatory for anyone running in a major party primary, unless
that candidate has annual income under $13,000. Biener v Calio, 03-1607.
The plaintiff, a Democrat who ran for U.S. House last year, had to pay a $3,000
fee. If he had run for the Senate, it would have been $9,000.

The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in 1972 and again in 1974 that mandatory filing fees are
unconstitutional. Delaware feels it complies with these rulings by exempting
people below the poverty line from paying the fee. The fee is mandatory for
everyone else. There is no petition in lieu of filing fee.

Steve Biener
argues that the founding fathers were clear that there be no wealth test, to
qualify for Congress. He also argues that the fee violates equal protection,
since one class of candidates (people with low income) may avoid the fee.

OTHER
LAWSUIT NEWS

1. Arizona:
the 9th circuit will hold a hearing in San Francisco on June 9 in Arizona
Libertarian Party v Bd. Supervisors, 02-16535. The issue is whether a party
can keep independent voters from voting in its primary.

2. California:
on April 25, the 1st district State Court of Appeal ruled that an initiative
petition need not have the title of the proposed law on both sides of each sheet.
A city clerk had rejected a petition because the law says the title must be
on "each page" and it was only on the front side of each sheet. Alliance
for a Better Downtown Millbrae v Wade, 99453.

3. Colorado:
on May 9, a Democratic State Senator filed a lawsuit to overturn the legislature's
recent redrawing of the state congressional districts. The state was already
redistricted once since the 2000 census, but the Republican-majority legislature
redrew them again last month, to make them more favorable to Republican members
of Congress. The plaintiff cites a state law that says redistricting shall only
be carried out after Congress has re-apportioned the nation's House seats.

4. Kentucky:
on May 7, the State Supreme Court upheld the lower court, and ruled that a candidate
for Governor in the primary may replace his or her Lieutenant Governor running-mate,
if the first Lieutenant Governor candidate is disqualified. Heleringer v
Brown, 2003-327.

5. Maine:
on May 16, the Green Party filed a lawsuit in the State Supreme Court to overturn
the legislature's redistricting plan, which eliminates the seat of the only
Green Party legislator. In the Matter of the Challenge to the 2003 Apportionment,
SJC 238.

6. New
York: on or about June 2, the Independence Party will file its federal lawsuit,
to enforce its own bylaw that lets independent voters vote in its primary. It
will be called McKay v State Bd. of Elections.

7. Texas:
on May 14, the state Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a state law requiring
anyone who hires a printer to mass-produce a campaign ad, to identify himself
in that ad. Doe v State, 254-02. The vote was 7-2.

GAO
RELEASES CLEAN ELECTIONS STUDY

The U.S.
Government Accounting Office has released its study of Arizona and Maine state
public funding for campaigns. It is at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-453.
The 144-page report concludes "with only two elections to observe legislative
races and only one election to observe statewide races," it is too early
to tell if public funding increases electoral competition and voter participation.

2. Wisconsin:
on April 29, voters filled two vacancies in the State Senate. In the 7th district
in Milwaukee, the vote was Democratic 70.61%; Green 29.39%. In the same district
in November 2002, the vote had been Democratic 79.61%; Green 20.39%.

In the
24th district, the vote was Democratic 62.08%; Republican 29.70%; independent
4.72%; Green 3.50%. The last time this seat was filled, only a Democrat had
run.

GREEN
PARTY NATIONAL MEETINGS

On or about
June 15, the Green Party will choose between Milwaukee, Minneapolis and San
Francisco, as the site of its 2004 presidential nominating convention. Also,
the party will hold a national committee meeting in Washington, D.C., July 18-20,
2003. The Washington Post on May 27 ran a page two article, reporting
that many leading Greens don't want to run a presidential candidate in 2004.
Obviously, that will be a topic of conversation at the July 2003 meeting.

LIBERTARIAN
PETITIONING IS LAGGING

The Libertarian
Party has not failed to place a presidential candidate on the ballot of any
state, since 1988. However, for 2004, the party still needs another 220,000
valid signatures, if it is going to place its nominee on all ballots using the
easiest method in each state. If it uses the more difficult procedures that
it used in 2000 (to qualify the whole party, not just the presidential candidate)
it needs 295,000 valid signatures. This translates to more than 400,000 raw
signatures. In the last 8 months, the party has only collected 38,000 raw signatures.

GREENS
WIN PARTISAN ELECTION

On May
6, New Paltz, New York held a 4-way election for Mayor. Jason West, who was
on the ballot with the ballot labels "Innovation" and "Green," won with
37.1% of the vote. The incumbent Mayor, Thomas Nyquist, who is a registered
Democrat and who was on the ballot under the partisan label "Village,"
polled 29.7%. Another registered Democrat, Robert Feldman, on with "Community"
as his label, polled 29.3%. A fourth candidate, with the label "Environmental"
polled 3.9%. See a copy of the ballot.

Some villages
in New York state elect their officers in a normal partisan election. Others,
including New Paltz, have elections in which the statewide qualified parties
are not permitted to nominate candidates. For these elections, most candidates
run as the nominees of parties that exist only in that particular village (all
such candidates petition their way onto the ballot). Since the Green Party lost
its qualified status in New York state in 2002, it was permitted to nominate
candidates in the New Paltz election.

New Paltz
is the home of a campus of New York State University, but students did not dominate
the voting. The village has approximately 3,000 registered voters, but only
869 people voted. It is estimated that only 200 of these were students. New
Paltz is on the west bank of the Hudson Valley, not far from Poughkeepsie.

The Green/Innovation
slate also elected both of its nominees for Trustee, so that slate has a majority
of 3-2 on the Board of Trustees. Rebecca Rotzler, like West, is a registered
Green; the other winner, Julia Walsh, is an independent.

West was
the Green Party nominee for Assembly (lower house of the state legislature)
in November 2002, but he only polled 2.4% in that race.

CONSTITUTION
PARTY CONVENTION

The Constitution
Party will probably hold its presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia,
late spring 2004.